作者：段磊
作者介绍：武汉大学法学院副教授、党内法规研究中心研究员，法学博士
出版日期：2026年8月9日
内容提要 党内法规的对象效力决定党内法规的适用对象，是关涉党内法规调整范围的核心问题。党内法规的适用对象可分为三种类型，即一般意义上的党员和党组织、行使公权力的党政干部和党政机关，以及公民、法人、其他组织。在“三分法”分析框架之下，党内法规对不同类型对象的效力存在显著差异。党内法规对党员和党组织的规范主要基于管党治党需要，其效力正当性基础在于马克思主义执政党的政治使命。党内法规对党政干部和党政机关的规范主要基于公权力运行监督制约的需要，其效力正当性基础植根于中国特色党政关系及其所塑造的党管干部原则和机关管理传统。党内法规对公民、法人、其他组织的规范主要基于实现特定行政管理职能的需要，其效力正当性基础主要与规范制定主体或合并设立党政机构的职权相关，需保持一定谦抑性，并依不同类型确立效力边界。这一类型化分析表明，党内法规的对象效力已超越一般的政党内部规范的效力范围，这不仅是由制定主体这一因素决定，还与党内法规的规范目的、对象属性以及法治体系的结构塑造密切相关。
关键词 党内法规 对象效力 适用对象 正当性基础 效力边界
Abstract: The personal scope of the binding force of intra-Party regulations is a core issue concerning the normative reach of the intra-Party regulations system. The subjects regulated by the regulations can be categorized into three types: Party members and Party organizations in the general sense; Party and government cadres and organs exercising public power; and citizens, legal persons, and other organizations. Under the tripartite analytical framework, the binding force of intra-Party regulations on different categories of subjects varies significantly. The binding force of intra-Party regulations upon Party members and Party organizations is primarily based on the need for governing and disciplining the Party, with its legitimacy rooted in the political mission of a Marxist governing party. The binding force of intra-Party regulations upon Party and government cadres and organs is mainly based on the need to oversee and constrain the operation of public power, with its legitimacy grounded in the Party-government relationship with Chinese characteristics and the resulting principle of the Party supervising cadres and tradition of organ management. The binding force of intra-Party regulations upon citizens, legal persons, and other organizations stems primarily from the need to fulfill specific administrative functions. Its legitimacy depends largely on the authority of the rule-making body or the powers vested in Party-government institutions established through institutional integration. In this regard, such regulations should be exercised with a degree of restraint, and their boundaries of applicability should be determined according to the nature of the subjects involved. This typological analysis demonstrates that the personal scope of the binding force of intra-Party regulations has extended beyond that of ordinary internal party rules. It cannot be explained solely by the identity of the rule-making authority, but it is also closely related to the regulatory purposes of intra-Party regulations, the characteristics of the subjects, and the structural configuration of China’s rule of law system.
